Do you think it's necessary for BIS providing lockable binPBO?

[[aps]gnat 28]

Oh how I miss the glory days of OFP... :(

Yep.

But then I'm sure there was a thread/discussion just like this back in the OFP days.

We got by without a tool then, so why not now?

Some might say theres more "work" in ArmA2 addons than OFP addons, but I think thats relative to the technology, tools and knowledge at the time. When OFP was out, making addons was just as tough.

[Tankbuster 1733]

It occurs to me that if BI provided better documentation and sample models, we wouldn't need to poke around in other peoples addons for educational purposes.

[Evil_Echo 11]

It occurs to me that if BI provided better documentation and sample models, we wouldn't need to poke around in other peoples addons for educational purposes.

I said the same thing many pages back in this thread. And it was ignored because many here are more interested in a bar-room brawl than solving whatever real problems exist.

Moderators:

Please lock this thread, it's become a waste of disk space and time.

[[frl]myke 14]

@CarlGustaffa

it wasn't my intention to mark you as "bad guy". In fact i do believe you that you are not stealing (in terms of taking other peoples work and claim it as your own work) and i also believe that your intentions while poking in other peoples work aren't bad either. I even understand that poking in addons might be helpful sometimes. But that doesn't make it right.

My property is my property. It is my decision if i want it to sell on turbosquid, it is my decision if i want it to give out as freeware so people can play (in terms of using it in ArmA 2 missions) or as open source so people can poke around in it. It is my property and therefor my very own decision how i want it to be handled.

So again, don't think i do hate you personally, i don't have a reason to do so. But in this case i think your attitude is just horribly wrong and as i see others having the same attitude, me thinks that on the long term it will be much more dammaging the community than the ability to lock usermade content.

[dmarkwick 261]

I do believe a lot of you people object to this simply because it would take away your ability to reconfigure other peoples addons to your liking, to be used in your clans games the way you like or other similar events and by doing so you are modifying and distributing other peoples addons. The second you send the modified addon to another person to be used in actual playing you've crossed the line and this is what I object. If the addon is not good enough don't use it. Or help the addon maker to make it better but remember that the person has every right to refuse your help.

Seeing as you're repeating a point you've already made several times, I'll reply again with the same counterpoint: there is nothing wrong with tinkering. I don't see why you're so riled up against making a minor change to an addon, if an author doesn't want that to happen for any reason he'll say so in the readme. I'l give you a direct example of tinkering that I've done.

In the SLX suite of addons I de-PBOd the one responsible for the blood splats and changed the number of existing bloodsplats from 1000 to 10,000 (or something similar, exact numbers aren't important) so that I could use this functionality to track down wounded enemy, and also to have some idea of what happened when I came across a bunch of dead bodies. Is that bad? Is it against the principle of modding, of addon distribution? I made the change, only I ever saw it, and it was not prohibited by the readme.

Again, it's called tinkering, and it's a long established principle of addon usage. There is nothing wrong with it, and I know of at least one example of a fellow modder on these boards adjusting my own addons for clan usage, and it's perfectly fine. The main point is that the addon is being used, and minor tinkering is perfectly acceptable. In fact, I might make the assumption that a lot of people start off by doing this. Not everyone comes into ArmA2 modding knowing how to program, and looking at good examples of addons is a good way to start.

Edited October 31, 2010 by DMarkwick

[dayglow 2]

So if I understand this correctly, modding game=good, modding a mod=bad?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Oops.. Wasn't done...

[[frl]myke 14]

So if I understand this correctly, modding game=good, modding a mod=bad?

Nope, you don't have it right: modding game without permission = bad, modding mods without permission = bad.

[smiley nick 51]

Would it not be a good idea for BIS to create such a tool that downgrades a pbo addon into low resolution textures and a very basic LOD so people can at least learn from it? This way there would be a much lower risk of someone going about putting it on turbo squid because of the poor quality.

I think it’s important for add-on makers to protect their work, given how complex and of high standards they are. Not to mention thousands of hours worth of research and development that people could overlook. However I think there is a small number of people who would like everyone to contact them about how they did something because I’m sure it’s a nice feeling right?

If BIS actively promoted a system where potential modders could look at other work for reference, with strict preferences and controls. People will (hopefully) be more inclined from a moral point of view to use the “official†tool, rather than someone else’s.

my $2

[nuxil 2]

what you dont know about doesnt hurt you right?

so if i wanted to play with addon X on my Pc. for Fun,educational and ONLY peronal use.

how can that be harmefull. how am i disrespecting the addonmaker if its for me only and me only. no none knows about it, no one will know about it.

nothing is modifyed and released to the public. so only thing i see here is that someone has gain some experiance in how things work and has you to thank for it. but it seams you guys dont want to share your knowledge with others.

you guys need to climb a few steps down on the ego latter.

because what you are saying is that. my addon has such a awesomeness that you cant look in it. you might get ideas to make something better.

which sickens me.

because there are times ther are the need to look inside pbos.

Gnat had a good example with his ships.

Btw. After this thread i had to make a license on my computer hardware.

By pressing Power on the computer you agree to the following lisence.

1: you are allowed to use and/or modify any contens on this hardware as long as it stays within this hardware and is only used for educational purpose.

2: you are not allowed to use and/or modify any contens on this hardware for public use with out premission from orginal creator of the contens.

Edited October 31, 2010 by nuxil

[Grizzle 0]

First of all there isn't a method to secure the mods that couldn't be broken by those determined to do it. Just like DRM that never works.

My take on it is (and it'll probably piss some people off ) if a modder can't stand the fact that someone might use his/her work to either learn from or even take directly they probably shouldn't be modding.

Yeah, sounds a bit harsh and I would feel differently if people were actually selling mods and making money on them. But IMHO modding is all about giving back to the community and to help BIS to make things better for everyone. If that can't be done with a spirit of giving then perhaps those people shouldn't be modding.

[hellfire257 3]

I don't really mind what people do with that I make. I make it for others to enjoy and how they enjoy them is up to them. All I ask for is a mention in the credits. With regards to mods that have got dependencies legally (RKSL's work for example) I can understand it. I think it should be optional but then unfortunately you would end up with protection fascists and it would be back to square one.

[max power 21]

so if a script has its license inside the pbo.and as many scripters do put them as a header in the scripts.

how can i know about its license without opening the pbo and/or looking at the script?

I guess you'd just have to put the license in a readme file like everyone else... FPDR

That's being ignorant. Why do I have to mention them, and by not doing so I earn a F- for respect? That's just ... WOW!

And for the record, yes I read the license...

Riddle me this, then: What is the difference between locking a pbo and putting the most restrictive possible license on it (or not putting a license file in there at all and having it default to a copyright license)? When's the last time you followed a license before you opened a pbo?

For me IP is like the "right to bear arms" - completely misused for what it's intended use once was.

That's a faulty analogy. IP rights are like property rights. IP rights are by default protected by copyright. Last I checked, property rights and copyrights weren't 'outmoded'.

Oh I also think they should make ur posts here open source for everyone to poke around in and edit. Wanna bet it's gonna be abused a little?

LOL! I love it!

Seeing as you're repeating a point you've already made several times, I'll reply again with the same counterpoint: there is nothing wrong with tinkering.

That isn't a counter point. That is the contested ground of the whole argument in its entirety.

Again, it's called tinkering, and it's a long established principle of addon usage.

Among other problems with this statement, appeals to convention are fallacious.

...but it seams you guys dont want to share your knowledge with others.

you guys need to climb a few steps down on the ego latter.

because what you are saying is that. my addon has such a awesomeness that you cant look in it. you might get ideas to make something better.

which sickens me.

You are so full of it. I don't know if you can read... I assume you can because you can write... which maybe is a hazardous assumption. Perhaps you can go back and read the thread and put some time into figuring out why this post is garbage?

Gnat;1779643']BS' date=' that faaarrrrr from 100% correct.

Tell me where anyone finds suitable references for;

- Large or small moving ships with multiple turrets

- Aircraft- multi load-out proxy set-up

- Static missile launchers

- Scud Launchers

Sure, theres lots of info in the ArmA1 samples, but not all variations, and not ArmA2 specials, and the config files are BASE configs, no examples written for people to generate their own stand-alone addon.[/quote']

Sounds like some good examples of where you'd ask some questions, or some permission if you came across a locked pbo you wanted to look around in. Excellent avenue to again disprove that wading through peoples' files is necessary for community advancement.

[Baff1 0]

That's a faulty analogy. IP rights are like property rights. IP rights are by default protected by copyright. Last I checked, property rights and copyrights weren't 'outmoded'..

I don't think they have kept up with technology.

For example, if you make a 3D model of a Ford, the IP belongs to Ford.

If you make a 3D model of an MP5, the IP belongs to H&K.

If you make a 3D model of a Humvee, the IP belongs to General Motors.

So if you want to make a mod using any of these and then publish it, you need to ask their permission first.

Which in my opinion is a load of bollocks. Outmoded.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Baff1

[nuxil 2]

I guess you'd just have to put the license in a readme file like everyone else... FPDR

this basicly mean that this doesnt apply for mission makers then.

so a mission makers work is less worthy than a addon maker.

are you implying that i need someones premission to play with someone elses mission in the editor aswell.

You are so full of it. I don't know if you can read... I assume you can because you can write... which maybe is a hazardous assumption. Perhaps you can go back and read the thread and put some time into figuring out why this post is garbage?

hmm garbage.thats your opinion. not mine.

in the end locking pbos will not result in models not beeing stolen.

as i said earlyer in a post. all this will result in is that somoene will release a depbo-unlocker. and then what would have been gained. nothing, nothing at all.

thouse who wants to steal find a way to do it anyway.

in the end you are responseble to protect your own work.

opensource, freeware,shareware it doesnt matter which one of thouse it is.

and some here has this stupid compersion that its the same as breaking into someones house.

tell ya what. if your house has been broken into do you sit passive by and say. oh well shit happens.

no you go to the police and report it.

if you dont pursue the person that stole your work. its your own problem

this seams also to push the responsibility on bis.

what are you going to do when one of your models form an locked addon appare on turbosquid

are you going to call bis.and say hey they stole my model from my locked addon.

i need some new way to protect my work. please fix this broken system.

Edited October 31, 2010 by nuxil

[max power 21]

I don't think they have kept up with technology.

For example, if you make a 3D model of a Ford, the IP belongs to Ford.

If you make a 3D model of an MP5, the IP belongs to H&K.

If you make a 3D model of a Humvee, the IP belongs to General Motors.

So if you want to make a mod using any of these and then publish it, you need to ask their permission first.

Which in my opinion is a load of bollocks. Outmoded.

No, the names Ford, H&K, and Hummer are all trademarks. They have a right to protect those trademarks. A painting of a Ford is not owned by Ford. That's laughable. If that was true, all videos that had Fords in them would be owned by Ford. There is also the issue of nominative fair use.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/liberate-b-24-liberator

this basicly mean that this doesnt apply for mission makers then.

so a mission makers work is less worthy than a addon maker.

are you implying that i need someones premission to play with someone elses mission in the editor aswell.

Why? Can't mission makers pack their missions in a zip file with a text file in there too? Seriously... Yeah, and if a mission maker wanted to protect his content and that was legally allowable by BIS and technically possible by any means, I think they should be able to do that.

hmm garbage.thats your opinion. not mine.

in the end locking pbos will not result in models not beeing stolen.

as i said earlyer in a post. all this will result in is that somoene will release a depbo-unlocker. and then what would have been gained. nothing, nothing at all.

thouse who wants to steal find a way to do it anyway.

in the end you are responseble to protect your own work.

opensource, freeware,shareware it doesnt matter which one of thouse it is.

and some here has this stupid compersion that its the same as breaking into someones house.

tell ya what. if your house has been broken into do you sit passive by and say. oh well shit happens.

no you go to the police and report it.

if you dont pursue the person that stole your work. its your own problem

this semas also to puch the responsibility on bis.

what are you going to do when one of your models form an locked addon appare on turbosquid

are you going to call bis.and say hey they stole my model from my loced addon.

i need some new way to protect my work. please fix this broken system.

So much more indication you can't read. Is it a reading problem or a memory problem? All of this has been covered. I'm going to do you a solid and reiterate the responses for all of your points if you promise not to bring them up like they are new information. I'm trying to stay away from really long posts in this discussion but we'll have to see what I can do here.

First of all, nothing in the above quote is what I was calling garbage. I was calling your suggestion that addon makers trying to withhold information from you garbage. Let's review. Among the people in here, Soul Assassin, PuFu, and myself are the people you're calling secretive. I have written two tutorials, I regularly update the Biki, and I answer almost every addon making question I read to the best of my ability. Soul Assassin, among other things I'm sure, created a highly advanced 3ds max tool out of thin air and freely distributes it. PuFu answers all kinds of questions with more detail and completeness than I could dream of, drawing on a very rich reserve of experience and skill. Who else are you calling secretive? RockApe, arguably the most protective modder in the community (and with good reason) releases free 'open source' models for the community just to have and lots of suggestions and pointers on a regular basis. Need I go on?

Secondly, reread the posts regarding encryption and legally implied protection. Also, try the ones about reduced damage being a good thing in terms of rate and absolute number of ripped off models.

Thirdly, reread the posts about AM4AR and what mod makers do to protect each other.

I believe that should adequately educate you on what has already transpired in this thread and why your newest post was entirely superfluous. Let's read what the opponents are saying next time. If you have nothing new to add, please don't add anything. Going back to what you said the first time to address a response is not a valid arguing tactic and it benefits no one.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Max Power

[NoRailgunner 0]

Not long Maruk suggested to take a closer look on licenses:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=105256

So if people like they can choose between

CC licenses by-NC-SA

CC licenses by-NC-ND

Btw which game developers or publishers have made a bullet-proofed protection system for community made content? Why should they even spend time and money to protect other people work outside their forums? Guess they have enough work to make their own games running and protecting it...

so a mission makers work is less worthy than a addon maker.

Outside the game noone is interested in missions, scripting magic or jpg medals. Thieves can't sell them like models/addons. Its not about who is better its about what makes more cash. ;)

[Baff1 0]

@Max.

A painting of a Ford is not owned by Ford. But the IP still is.

If you wish to publish it, you need their permission. (Or at least, they can sue you if you do so without their permission).

Hence, if you wish to put a Ford in your Death Race in the School Playground game, Ford can stop you.

No end of car games have had trouble with using real cars.

All of them standardly seek permission to use those models in their games.

Certain car manufactureres are more notorious for suing than others. (GM for example). They don't have to sue you of course, if you don't have permission. But they can if they want to.

You will notice when ArmA2 launches, that they have to mention that the ACOG gunsights are trademarks of the manufacturers. etc.

This is how it works, when you make a model of something, you have not made anything original. You have not created something new, you have not created an IP. You have copied something existing. Used an existing IP.

The reason people are downloading your MP5 mod, is not because you have modelled a new and fantastic gun that everybody is in awe of but because people love MP5, the gun the SAS uses. It's because HK made it that people want to download it, not because you did.

The IP belongs to HK.

The copywright for that model belongs to HK.

You just copied it. That is all.

The original designer made a 3D model long before you did. The IP belongs to him. (Or his employer).

The value of a 3D modellers work is solely in the effort he has put in to re-create it. It's not his IP, it is the creators.

If you want to own an IP, you have to start one of your own. Be a creative artist rather than a reproductive one.

So I laugh at modellers demanding that their permission be asked to use their mods. I doubt they have ever asked the actual owners for it.

And at the same time, you have to recognise that they have put the hours and commitment in modelling someone elses design to work within a new graphical framework, and that current copywright law doesn't allow them to protect that.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Baff1

[PuFu 4591]

I don't think they have kept up with technology.

For example, if you make a 3D model of a Ford, the IP belongs to Ford.

If you make a 3D model of an MP5, the IP belongs to H&K.

If you make a 3D model of a Humvee, the IP belongs to General Motors.

So if you want to make a mod using any of these and then publish it, you need to ask their permission first.

Which in my opinion is a load of bollocks. Outmoded.

Oh really? Do you live on the same planet with us all?

[nuxil 2]

Max Power what new contrutive things have you posted?

seams like you dont got anything new to add in here aswell.

Why? Can't mission makers pack their missions in a zip file with a text file in there too?

some missions are not on hosted sites. you will only find the missions in the mpcache.

Outside the game noone is interested in missions, scripting magic or jpg medals. Thieves can't sell them like models/addons. Its not about who is better its about what makes more cash. ;)

so your saying my artwork i make as jpgs to the mission as little or no value to others?

sell your model yourself before someone else steals and does it.

Baff1 . you can model any models you want. but you can not put them in public use with the corresponding name without the premssion from the maker.

good example. Coyota in arma ;)

Edited October 31, 2010 by nuxil

[max power 21]

@Max.

A painting of a Ford is not owned by Ford. But the IP still is.

If you wish to publish it, you need their permission.

I can sue anyone for anything. That does not mean there is grounds for a lawsuit.

Also, I don't remember seeing (and I can't confirm because I don't have ArmA 2 here) anything that says 'The likeness Ah-1z Viper is a copyright of bell helicopters, the likeness of the BMP-3 is a copyright of Kurganmashzavod (or whatever)'... There must be something special about the reticles, since it doesn't cover the whole rifles and everything else.

Max Power what new contrutive things have you posted?

seams like you dont got anything new to add in here aswell.

I was recapping for you... I know you think you're being clever but 'I know you are but what am I' doesn't really work either. Obviously you have nothing to respond to the points I raised so hopefully now we can move past that or someone else can give it a try.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Max Power

[dmarkwick 261]

@Max.

A painting of a Ford is not owned by Ford. But the IP still is.

If you wish to publish it, you need their permission. (Or at least, they can sue you if you do so without their permission).

Hence, if you wish to put a Ford in your Death Race in the School Playground game, Ford can stop you.

No end of car games have had trouble with using real cars.

All of them standardly seek permission to use those models in their games.

Certain car manufactureres are more notorious for suing than others. (GM for example). They don't have to sue you of course, if you don't have permission. But they can if they want to.

You will notice when ArmA2 launches, that they have to mention that the ACOG gunsights are trademarks of the manufacturers. etc.

This is how it works, when you make a model of something, you have not made anything original. You have not created something new, you have not created an IP. You have copied something existing. Used an existing IP.

The reason people are downloading your MP5 mod, is not because you have modelled a new and fantastic gun that everybody is in awe of but because people love MP5, the gun the SAS uses. It's because HK made it that people want to download it, not because you did.

The IP belongs to HK.

The copywright for that model belongs to HK.

You just copied it. That is all.

The original designer made a 3D model long before you did. The IP belongs to him. (Or his employer).

The value of a 3D modellers work is solely in the effort he has put in to re-create it. It's not his IP, it is the creators.

If you want to own an IP, you have to start one of your own. Be a creative artist rather than a reproductive one.

So I laugh at modellers demanding that their permission be asked to use their mods. I doubt they have ever asked the actual owners for it.

And at the same time, you have to recognise that they have put the hours and commitment in modelling someone elses design to work within a new graphical framework, and that current copywright law doesn't allow them to protect that.

This is all rather an excellent point actually. I know the makers of IL2 had some problems using the likenesses of some aircraft. I doubt the manufacturers would ever sue, but I also doubt it means the modeler in any way "owns" the likeness he's copied. I'm not doubting anyone's skill and technical ability, but if Lucasfilm can swoop in to other game mods and close them down for using likenesses of models, then I doubt the craftmanship and "ownership" of the model made any difference whatsoever.

Model theft is not an ArmA2 problem.

[max power 21]

This is all rather an excellent point actually. I know the makers of IL2 had some problems using the likenesses of some aircraft. I doubt the manufacturers would ever sue, but I also doubt it means the modeler in any way "owns" the likeness he's copied. I'm not doubting anyone's skill and technical ability, but if Lucasfilm can swoop in to other game mods and close them down for using likenesses of models, then I doubt the craftmanship and "ownership" of the model made any difference whatsoever.

Model theft is not an ArmA2 problem.

It's not the likeness we're contesting but the data and the expressive component that goes into creating it. If I write a program that describes a simulation of two galaxies colliding, I don't imply any claim to own any galaxies or the concept of galaxy collision.

[Baff1 0]

@ Nuxil,

You can't publish them with a different name either. Or at least if you do, the owner still has grounds to come after you.

Depending on which country you are in there are fair requirements for your model to differ significantly. I think it's a 10% alteration in mine.

Drawing a Ferrari and calling it a "Ziginfi" won't get you off the the hook if they wish to come after you.

If however you embelished it, added a new spoiler here, some different wing mirrors there... essentially created enough original material to justify it no longer being an exact copy... then you can copywright it as your own.

---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 PM ----------

I can sue anyone for anything. That does not mean there is grounds for a lawsuit.

Also, I don't remember seeing (and I can't confirm because I don't have ArmA 2 here) anything that says 'The likeness Ah-1z Viper is a copyright of bell helicopters, the likeness of the BMP-3 is a copyright of Kurganmashzavod (or whatever)'... There must be something special about the reticles, since it doesn't cover the whole rifles and everything else..

It specifically mentions ACOG sights in the opening titles of ArmA 2.

Breach of copywright is grounds for a lawsuit. Whether or not the owner of that copywright is intrested in pursuing this is quite another thing completely.

I've been using the example of cars quite alot in my discussion, because car manufacturers have something of a history of suing video game manufacturers for unlisenced publication of their models, while as far as I know, the people who make BMPs, never have.

That's not to say they would be unable to successfully do so, only that they haven't.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

good example. Coyota in arma ;)

I do, however, prefer Toyoda :D

Actually Baff1 I believe you are wrong, and it was said early in this thread I think by Rock. You can model anything you want without seeking permission, as the shape isn't protected. That model is fully yours. What you can't do and shouldn't do is call it by its right name or use its logo, since that is trademarked. Trademark however, is something the commercial industry needs t worry about, not us. Rockstar couldn't use real names on their models that reflected real cars in their GTA games, without asking permission. BIS got permission to call ACOG by its name. If they didn't they could call it COAG and all would be good ;) When a modder does it, there is nothing commercial about it, so they tend to ignore it.

And when they do care enough to take action, they actually tend to loose these court cases, on the grounds of fair use (and fair tradings). A painter can copy the Mona Lisa. He owns the IP to that copied painting. But afaik IP isn't exclusive rights to do anything. He can't portray it as the original (obvious). He may not display it publicly (not so obvious where this line goes, seek legal council). In some cases he may even exploit it commercially (sounds dubious I know, but there are cases to prove it).

But here is the kicker! He may not claim copyright on it ;) Sounds crazy, I know, but there are actually legal standards on what can be copyrighted and what can't. People claim copyright east and west without knowing what it is all about, but most of us just ignore it. There are many (not all) copyrights claimed (no longer required as it comes automatically, but many times you fall outside of copyright without even knowing it) in modding communities, that wouldn't stand a chance if they were actually tried in a court. We all just accept it as a courtesy to the creator. There is a clause in there requiring a certain amount of originality for copyright to take place. And obviously the definition of amount is rather vague.

Hypothetical example:

1. Domination is original and copyrighted material (it's CC licenced, but for the sake of argument), and I get permission to modify and release.

2. I do my modifications and release it. It is now my IP, so I think I automatically have copyright. But I don't (in legal terms) as it wouldn't be considered original enough. People may choose to respect my claimed copyright (or typically, assumed I obtained for free). But if I actually sued someone for "stealing my work", well - some lessons are learned the hard way.

I used to be a fan of PD and copyleft, but now I'm all CC(NC). My statements above may be all wrong for all I care. Anyone can find cases to support their views. My point is it doesn't easily make anything right or wrong, in a legal sense. Learn to accept that if you release something to the public, you also give them the possibility to poke around in it, only in few cases that will be for wrong intentions. Like it or dislike it.

I'm going to end my involvement in this discussion by stating that I see the ability to lock pbos until given permission to only hurt the already fragile modding community remaining in Arma 2, as if we are to take everything that we've already discussed in terms of this topic out of the equation, what happens when you simply become no longer contactable? People will never be able to access your work again.

Right behind you, but I agree fully. Protect the model from squid (at least those holds commercial grounds), I don't care. But protecting pbos will only hurt the community in a very very bad way. I can not see any good come out of that, only bad.

One thing though, where are the freshmen? The modders of tomorrow? I only see "old timers" taking part in this. Are we too intimidating or something? If so I'm apologize on my own behalf. Guess it's a very touchy issue for most of us, and we won't agree on much of it. Fighting amongst ourselves doesn't fix that.

Where I stand is by now well known. With that, I'm out of this discussion.